Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study was to examine whether the type of touchscreen gesture (i.e., drag or tap) affected adults' accuracy in integer and fractional number line tasks.In previous research, the drag gesture was hypothesized to be a more embodied way in which people interact with number lines.Seventy-eight undergraduate students participated in three phases.Phase 1 involved experience placing whole number targets on several number lines (i.e., 0-10, 0-25, 0-50, and 0-75).Phase 2 involved placing fractional amounts (e.g., 5/8) on the same number lines, and Phase 3 involved assessment of the participants' fraction knowledge.The results showed that participants were significantly more accurate using the drag gesture than the tap gesture on fraction number line task (Phase 2).However, using either the tap or drag gesture in Phase 1 (integer number line tasks) did not influence performance in Phase 2 (fraction number line tasks) or Phase 3 (fraction knowledge assessment).In summary, these results did not support the hypotheses that the gesture used in Phase 1 would affect participants' performance in Phases 2 and 3 (fraction number line tasks and fraction knowledge assessment, respectively).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".